A Canada/US merger?

[bush_cheney2004]

Same for 'Murica.

'Murica has a much higher population density, even in remote regions save for Alaska. So who wants to merge with the "frozen tundra" if even Canadians won't do it ?

[cybercoma]

'Murica has a much higher population density because it has smaller square mileage and a higher population generally. But the fact remains that the population is not even remotely close to being evenly distributed and there are many empty areas on that map, just as there are in Canada.

[bush_cheney2004]

'Murica has a much higher population density because it has smaller square mileage and a higher population generally. But the fact remains that the population is not even remotely close to being evenly distributed and there are many empty areas on that map, just as there are in Canada.

Nope...far more (percentage) of Canada remains largely UNINHABITED by even small permanent settlement. There are no ground transportation services, conventional telecommunications, or other major infrastructure investment. Some estimate that as much as 90% of Canada remains UNINHABITED:

Canada is something of a paradox: a country that is both large and small at the same time. Land-wise, only the Russian Federation occupies more sheer territory, yet when it comes to people, Canada trails behind many European countries nearly one-thirtieth its size. The explanation stems from Canada’s unique geography, which is, all things considered, rather unfriendly to humans. Around 90 per cent of Canada’s land is uninhabited, and most Canadians live clustered together in a handful of large cities close to the U.S. border. - See more at: http://www.thecanadaguide.com/geography#sthash.rUrquBo1.dpu

Edited November 11, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

I certainly don't mean a centralized government that runs the planet but something more binding on how governments are run, how they behave towards the people they govern and towards other governments. I guess our universal human rights are supposed to cover this but amongst the reasons to often ask "how's that working out", this would be one of them.

As for local control I subscribe to a bio-regional approach

I'm pretty sure we'll need another 50,000 years of evolution before we're civilized enough.

[Michael Hardner]

Eyeball: 'civilized' is an interesting word to use. The birth of banking, money, and writing created cities, which forced 'civilization' upon us. This is kind of a similar back-door result IMO.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't understand the argument above, or rather WHY there's an argument above when density is a number that anybody can look up.

Without foreknowledge as to what the answer might be, let me look this up:

Population density of the lower 48 states: 103.639 / sq mile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contiguous_United_States

Canada's population density: 9 / sq mile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't understand the argument above, or rather WHY there's an argument above when density is a number that anybody can look up.

Without foreknowledge as to what the answer might be, let me look this up:

I think the "argument" was pointed at the more narrow question of density on habitable land. Some parts of Canada may as well be on Mars in that regard. Perhaps global warming climate change will fix that.

[ReeferMadness]

I think the "argument" was pointed at the more narrow question of density on habitable land. Some parts of Canada may as well be on Mars in that regard. Perhaps global warming climate change will fix that.

And some parts of the US may as well be on Venus, Perhaps climate change will exacerbate that.

[bush_cheney2004]

And some parts of the US may as well be on Venus, Perhaps climate change will exacerbate that.

But the U.S. will still have roads to get there.....not so in Canada.

[jbg]

But the U.S. will still have roads to get there.....not so in Canada.

The Rockies have large chunks of roadless, or seasonally inaccessible areas. And Alaska? Try driving to Nome or Barrow from Anchorage or the Alcan Highway. You can't.

[bush_cheney2004]

The Rockies have large chunks of roadless, or seasonally inaccessible areas. And Alaska? Try driving to Nome or Barrow from Anchorage or the Alcan Highway. You can't.

You missed the 'Venus' context.....does not apply to Alaska (already mentioned above). The U.S. Interstate Highway System and secondary roads do provide access to less densely populated areas of the U.S. west, while there is no such access in much of northern Canada. That's why we get to watch "Ice Road Truckers" on cable tv.

[Moonlight Graham]

deleted

Edited November 12, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[-1=e^ipi]

@ armyguy - it is good to hear that some people on our country are open minded enough to change their minds and see the potential, mutually-beneficial, long term economic benefits of an eventual merger of Canada & the USA.

I personally think common sense suggests it would be a really bad financial move for Canada in the long term.

Picture two 100 acre parcels.... on one parcel lives a single family. On the other parcel lives 10 families. Both parcels are rich in resources (forests, minerals, soil, water) only the single family parcel is a little richer. A plan is devised to merge the two parcels and just share it all.

The essental result of this arrangement is that the single family that lived on parcel A goes from controlling 100 acres to controlling 18. As long as there was a friendly relationship between parcel A, and parcel B, they would have been MUCH better off keeping their parcel and gradually selling goods and resources to the greater population on parcel B at ever increasing prices as resources on parcel B became depleted.

What is with this nonsense Malthusian economic model? Land isn't the only factor of production. If it were then countries like Japan, South Korea and Singapore would not be rich countries like Canada. You also have to consider population, human capital, physical capital, technology, economies of scale, etc.

[g_bambino]

[T]he difference between the US and Canada is mininmal, we share most of the same values, morals, well once it is all laid out their is not a whole lot of difference between the two people.

The differences are strong enough, obviously.

f this nation decides to merge then i'm all for it. not because of the money but rather for what is best for the nation

What is decided by a nation (either through referendum, representative parliament, or both) isn't always what's best for the nation.

[jbg]

The differences are strong enough, obviously.

Canada and the U.S. are very different countries. Almost as dissimilar as bordering countries such as Israel and Syria, or Israel and non-country Gaza.

[Army Guy]

Canada and the U.S. are very different countries. Almost as dissimilar as bordering countries such as Israel and Syria, or Israel and non-country Gaza.

How so? how are we SO different.

[bleeding heart]

Yeah, I don't agree. We're probably more alike than many neighbouring countries....certainly we're more alike than those that were just mentioned.

[jbg]

Yeah, I don't agree. We're probably more alike than many neighbouring countries....certainly we're more alike than those that were just mentioned.

Analogies just as good would be the difference between North and South Korea, and India and Pakistan. Ask any Canadian. Our countries are not alike.

[bleeding heart]

Analogies just as good would be the difference between North and South Korea, and India and Pakistan. Ask any Canadian. Our countries are not alike.

I am a Canadian. And I disagree.

[Moonlight Graham]

take a look at Texas or californa, so why not Canadian. what is it that your afraid of loosing ?

I wouldn't want a merger because we'd lose our country. We'd lose our independence and sovereignty. We are much smaller and much less powerful than the US, so in any merger we would be swallowed by them, it wouldn't be an equal partnership. The US would never change its name as a country or give up it's political power, so we would cease to be the country called "Canada" and we'd essentially be not much more than another US state, another star on the flag. Canada is politically and socially quite different than the US and I wouldn't want to lose that. If I ever wanted to become an American and didn't like Canada anymore I'd just move there.

Only in wildly dramatic or changing circumstances would Canadians ever agree to merge, so there's not much point discussing it.

[Michael Hardner]

Canada is politically and socially quite different than the US and I wouldn't want to lose that.

But is Canada so different from the US than states are from each other ? Keep in mind they're "states" and their independence from each other factors into what it is.

What if we called the new entity the United States and Provinces of North America ?

Indeed some US states have something like Healthcare, and Canadian-like systems for social services....

[bush_cheney2004]

....Only in wildly dramatic or changing circumstances would Canadians ever agree to merge, so there's not much point discussing it.

And yet, it keeps coming up again and again in various contexts in this forum. The idea of "merging" with the United States seems to be a consistent chip in a game of domestic discord, regionalism, separatism, etc. Far more than in the U.S., where Canada is viewed mostly as a giant theme park with natural resources and bad weather.

Why is that ? It seems totally inconsistent with lots of well expressed anti-American rants from wars to health care to hormones in milk for their corn flakes.

[g_bambino]

But is Canada so different from the US than states are from each other?

Yes. And I know some (many?) may scoff at this, but I think that our respective systems of government are at the heart of it; either we collectively think as we do because of our governmental structures or our governmental structures are as they are because of the way we collectively think. It seems to me the vast majority of Canadians would not tolerate the US system--which is the same through all the states, just as ours is through all the provinces)--and there's no way to merge the two.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... It seems to me the vast majority of Canadians would not tolerate the US system--which is the same through all the states, just as ours is through all the provinces)--and there's no way to merge the two.

Agreed....the original, fundamental differences remain and there is no way to "merge" the two as a single, sovereign state.

[Moonlight Graham]

But is Canada so different from the US than states are from each other ? Keep in mind they're "states" and their independence from each other factors into what it is.

What if we called the new entity the United States and Provinces of North America ?

Indeed some US states have something like Healthcare, and Canadian-like systems for social services....

I'm actually warming to the idea of a merger, but until a few conditions. The US will cease to be its own country and will be kindly invited to join Canada as one province. States will remain in name only, and state laws will be abolished for one singular province called 'Murica. 'Murica can send a couple of senators to sit in our excellent Senate, and we'll allow 'Murica to have about a 2 dozen MP's in the House of Commons.

There will be a massive "Redneck Re-education" residential school program to get those types caught up to the 21st century. Things like table manners, proper hygiene, basic reading and writing skill etc. will be taught. No 2nd Amendment in Canada, so all illegal guns will have to be put in a big furnace and melted into Zamboni machines. Obamacare of course will be replaced with the Canadian healthcare system, and 'Muricans will complain about living longer, but that's ok. US aircraft carriers will be painted red and white. All coffee chops in 'Murica will be transformed into a Tim Hortons, except for Starbucks, which will now be called "Tim Hortons Classy!". Bullet-train rail-lines will be built from each province to California, Florida, and Las Vegas so we can go chill there whenever we want.